Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Foxfyre wrote:

I do agree religion is as apt to be used to 'stir up the masses' as anything else, and since most people of the world are religious, it is probably the most prevalent vehicle used to stir them up. My point is, that if religion was suddenly eliminated, nothing would change. People would just find somewhere else to fix their loyalties and would be just as susceptible to manipulation. The problem is not with religion, but with human nature and the ability of evil people to exploit it.

Hum, I basically agree. I can't really imagine that if there was no religion, the Middle East would suddenly be a region of democratic nations.

Too many variables involved. Tribal feuds. Nationalism. Language barriers. And so on and so on....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I do agree religion is as apt to be used to 'stir up the masses' as anything else, and since most people of the world are religious, it is probably the most prevalent vehicle used to stir them up. My point is, that if religion was suddenly eliminated, nothing would change. People would just find somewhere else to fix their loyalties and would be just as susceptible to manipulation. The problem is not with religion, but with human nature and the ability of evil people to exploit it.

Hum, I basically agree. I can't really imagine that if there was no religion, the Middle East would suddenly be a region of democratic nations.

Too many variables involved. Tribal feuds. Nationalism. Language barriers. And so on and so on....

yep. anyone that wants to manipulate others for his own benefit can always find an angle that will mobilize others to do his bidding.

0 Replies

So, do we leave Iran alone? Or take out a nuclear bomb plant? Or let Israel do it?

0 Replies

IB- your repeated accusation of "misquotes" serves only to demonstrate your own academic laziness. A simple Google search will verify that I've misquoted nothing. If you can't see the similarities between Ahmadinejad's and Bin Laden's rhetoric, Google will likely cure that for you as well. But don't waste your time. I'm done wasting mine on you as well.

Finn,

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
What other premise for a cartoon could reach the dizzying self-righteous heights of indignation as those published recently? Can a parallel be drawn between this and any other subject of devotion? I think not. I wouldn't (usually) go so far as to call religious beliefs irrational but I think it's undeniable that they lay a more solid foundation than any other for irrationally accepted exploitation.

I don't follow this line of your argument. Please rephrase.

Fair enough, that is a bit muddled. Basically, faith almost by definition is indicative of a willingness to believe things that can't be proven. Muslim faith, as we speak, is at least a necessary component in the riots around the world over cartoons. This may not be a majority of Muslims, but it's certainly more than a few. I can't think of a single other instance that rivaled this for irrational responses. Blame the provocateurs if you wish, but it still wouldn't happen absent the perpetrator's religion.

I also don't know how you can ignore the fact that only religion adds an After-Life set of rewards and punishments that no ism can match. I never said religion was unique in its ability to condition people to accept irrational behavior. I said it is far more likely. I believe this is amply demonstrated in history.

I don't understand your Communism captured superior numbers than any religion argument, because I don't see how that applies. Communism doesn't require belief in the un-provable to accept. While I find Communism foolhardy at best, I couldn't testify that belief in it proves irrationality because I don't think it does. Radical extremist Muslims must first accept that theirs is the only true God AND that it's their God's will that they convert the masses. To me, this screams irrationality. While communists may have had similar goals, they had a far more rational basis for setting them. Calling for the murder of cartoonists, burning embassy's etc. is probably the most irrational display of religion-based idiocy I've ever seen. While there are certainly many factors in play; this irrational reaction simply doesn't happen absent religion. When did a substantial number of communists around the world ever lose their collective mind over something as silly as a cartoon? No Finn I don't believe any ism ever demonstrated the ability to promote irrational behavior to the extent religion has and is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So, do we leave Iran alone? Or take out a nuclear bomb plant? Or let Israel do it?

not sure. damn. hate it when that happens. Confused

0 Replies

The entire communists atheism is more murderous than any religion is horsie poop, as i've already pointed out. It is, however, the kind of crap christians love to peddle . . .

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

IB- your repeated accusation of "misquotes" serves only to demonstrate your own academic laziness. A simple Google search will verify that I've misquoted nothing. If you can't see the similarities between Ahmadinejad's and Bin Laden's rhetoric, Google will likely cure that for you as well. But don't waste your time. I'm done wasting mine on you as well.

Finn,

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
What other premise for a cartoon could reach the dizzying self-righteous heights of indignation as those published recently? Can a parallel be drawn between this and any other subject of devotion? I think not. I wouldn't (usually) go so far as to call religious beliefs irrational but I think it's undeniable that they lay a more solid foundation than any other for irrationally accepted exploitation.

I don't follow this line of your argument. Please rephrase.

Fair enough, that is a bit muddled. Basically, faith almost by definition is indicative of a willingness to believe things that can't be proven. Muslim faith, as we speak, is at least a necessary component in the riots around the world over cartoons. This may not be a majority of Muslims, but it's certainly more than a few. I can't think of a single other instance that rivaled this for irrational responses. Blame the provocateurs if you wish, but it still wouldn't happen absent the perpetrator's religion.

I also don't know how you can ignore the fact that only religion adds an After-Life set of rewards and punishments that no ism can match. I never said religion was unique in its ability to condition people to accept irrational behavior. I said it is far more likely. I believe this is amply demonstrated in history.

I don't understand your Communism captured superior numbers than any religion argument, because I don't see how that applies. Communism doesn't require belief in the un-provable to accept. While I find Communism foolhardy at best, I couldn't testify that belief in it proves irrationality because I don't think it does. Radical extremist Muslims must first accept that theirs is the only true God AND that it's their God's will that they convert the masses. To me, this screams irrationality. While communists may have had similar goals, they had a far more rational basis for setting them. Calling for the murder of cartoonists, burning embassy's etc. is probably the most irrational display of religion-based idiocy I've ever seen. While there are certainly many factors in play; this irrational reaction simply doesn't happen absent religion. When did a substantial number of communists around the world ever lose their collective mind over something as silly as a cartoon? No Finn I don't believe any ism ever demonstrated the ability to promote irrational behavior to the extent religion has and is.[/quote

Religion has an undeniably irrational basis. This, of course, doesn't mean that all actions and positions taken by religion and the religious are irrational. Nor does it mean that the irrational acts of professed believers are the result of religion.

I'm not sure what the real difference is between the actions of Nazi fanatics during Kristallnacht and those of muslims rioting in the streets over political cartoons.

I know you do not mean to suggest that a paranoid hatred for jews is rational. I also suspect that you would not argue that the systematic destruction of the Chinese intellectual community during the Cultural Revolution was rational either.

Returning to the questions posed:

[i]Is it (religion) significantly more effective than any other transcendent authority in creating a framework for the power mad to gain the initial support of the people?[/i]

That literally billions of people cleaved to the transcendent authority of communism and thereby allowed insane leaders to gain the power for which they lusted is, it seems to me, pretty substantial proof that religion is not the only ism that can establish support for tyrants, nor that it is the premier ism in this regard.

There is a bias among many against irrationality. This is understandable, particularly given our Western cultural roots. As a result, any dictionary look-up of the term will result in definitions with negative connotations.

Fine. There is no reason for proponents of rationalism to appreciate or even acknowledge the value of the irrational. There is a problem, (largely born of hubris) I think, with a bias that equates all aspects of the irrational with malignancy.

If a so-called rational school of thought results in evil, is it is any way superior to an irrational school of thought producing the same evil results?
Communism and Nationalism have resulted in the deaths of innocent millions. Religion has resulted in the deaths of innocent millions. Is one preferable to the other because you believe you can rationalize the underlying premise of thought?

0 Replies

Everybody knows communists are just big huggable teddy bears.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

IB- your repeated accusation of "misquotes" serves only to demonstrate your own academic laziness. A simple Google search will verify that I've misquoted nothing. If you can't see the similarities between Ahmadinejad's and Bin Laden's rhetoric, Google will likely cure that for you as well. But don't waste your time. I'm done wasting mine on you as well.

Finn,

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
What other premise for a cartoon could reach the dizzying self-righteous heights of indignation as those published recently? Can a parallel be drawn between this and any other subject of devotion? I think not. I wouldn't (usually) go so far as to call religious beliefs irrational but I think it's undeniable that they lay a more solid foundation than any other for irrationally accepted exploitation.

I don't follow this line of your argument. Please rephrase.

Fair enough, that is a bit muddled. Basically, faith almost by definition is indicative of a willingness to believe things that can't be proven. Muslim faith, as we speak, is at least a necessary component in the riots around the world over cartoons. This may not be a majority of Muslims, but it's certainly more than a few. I can't think of a single other instance that rivaled this for irrational responses. Blame the provocateurs if you wish, but it still wouldn't happen absent the perpetrator's religion.

I also don't know how you can ignore the fact that only religion adds an After-Life set of rewards and punishments that no ism can match. I never said religion was unique in its ability to condition people to accept irrational behavior. I said it is far more likely. I believe this is amply demonstrated in history.

I don't understand your Communism captured superior numbers than any religion argument, because I don't see how that applies. Communism doesn't require belief in the un-provable to accept. While I find Communism foolhardy at best, I couldn't testify that belief in it proves irrationality because I don't think it does. Radical extremist Muslims must first accept that theirs is the only true God AND that it's their God's will that they convert the masses. To me, this screams irrationality. While communists may have had similar goals, they had a far more rational basis for setting them. Calling for the murder of cartoonists, burning embassy's etc. is probably the most irrational display of religion-based idiocy I've ever seen. While there are certainly many factors in play; this irrational reaction simply doesn't happen absent religion. When did a substantial number of communists around the world ever lose their collective mind over something as silly as a cartoon? No Finn I don't believe any ism ever demonstrated the ability to promote irrational behavior to the extent religion has and is.

{Somehow I screwed up the configuration - for the sake of ease of reading, I am re-posting Apologies for the redundancy.}

Religion has an undeniably irrational basis. This, of course, doesn't mean that all actions and positions taken by religion and the religious are irrational. Nor does it mean that the irrational acts of professed believers are the result of religion.

I'm not sure what the real difference is between the actions of Nazi fanatics during Kristallnacht and those of muslims rioting in the streets over political cartoons.

I know you do not mean to suggest that a paranoid hatred for jews is rational. I also suspect that you would not argue that the systematic destruction of the Chinese intellectual community during the Cultural Revolution was rational either.

Returning to the questions posed:

Is it (religion) significantly more effective than any other transcendent authority in creating a framework for the power mad to gain the initial support of the people?

That literally billions of people cleaved to the transcendent authority of communism and thereby allowed insane leaders to gain the power for which they lusted is, it seems to me, pretty substantial proof that religion is not the only ism that can establish support for tyrants, nor that it is the premier ism in this regard.

There is a bias among many against irrationality. This is understandable, particularly given our Western cultural roots. As a result, any dictionary look-up of the term will result in definitions with negative connotations.

Fine. There is no reason for proponents of rationalism to appreciate or even acknowledge the value of the irrational. There is a problem, (largely born of hubris) I think, with a bias that equates all aspects of the irrational with malignancy.

If a so-called rational school of thought results in evil, is it is any way superior to an irrational school of thought producing the same evil results?
Communism and Nationalism have resulted in the deaths of innocent millions. Religion has resulted in the deaths of innocent millions. Is one preferable to the other because you believe you can rationalize the underlying premise of thought?

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Everybody knows communists are just big huggable teddy bears.

Your attempt at sarcasm has all the flair and sting of a grammar school child's retort . . . the mass murders, show trials, mass deportations and the gulag did not exist before Stalin, and did not exist after Stalin. They were not axiomatically concommitant with a Leninist-Marxist state. Coming from a Jesus freak, that's a pretty snotty hypocricy you got goin' on there . . .

0 Replies

As for Finn's horseshit--billions of people did not willingly "cleave" to communism, blindly and joyously allowing madmen to take over. For as bad as the Cultural Revolution was, and for as nutty as Mao was, China saw nothing comparable to the compressed insanity of Stalin and Beria. More than that, there is no basis upon which to suggest that those billions willingly "cleaved" to the ideology. Christianity has been slaughtering the infidel for two millenia--Soviet communism lasted a scant three generations, late 1917 to 1991. Communism theoretically survives today in China, although i doubt that either Marx or Lenin would be willing to own it. As i have already pointed out, not even Mao's Cultural Revolution approaches the murderous enormities of the purges, the show trials, the deportations and the gulag--Stalin and Beria represent a singlar example of that madness. It is also worth pointing out that those who trot that horseshit out make no distinction between the deaths sustained by the Russians and the Chinese in the Second World War, and those which they intend to allege derive from rampant communist atheism.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

After reading the comments that some have made an attempt to compare the destructive actions of for example Hitler, Stalin and the other tyrants throughout history with religion. I should point out when they fall their actions normally fall with them. However, with religion the damage it does is ongoing and more encompassing It's justification has been implanted in the minds of it's adherents. To be awakened and used time and time again. Religion divides people and sets them at each others throats

IMO words such as brotherhood, turn the other cheek,peace be with you and all the platitudes uttered by religion are only meant for the faithful of that religion.

You have attempted to make the case that religion is, by far, the greatest source of evil in the world. This just doesn't hold water.

That when Hitler died Nazi fanaticism essentially died as well is remarkably meaningless. Religious fanaticism is just as dependent upon charismatic leaders as any other bent school of human thought.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our isms, but in ourselves.

It is, I think, foolish, and dangerous to attempt to exempt individuals from accountability for their evil by focusing on a particular ism.

If you had your way and religion was wiped from the face of the earth, do you really believe that evil would be as well?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

As for Finn's horseshit--billions of people did not willingly "cleave" to communism, blindly and joyously allowing madmen to take over. For as bad as the Cultural Revolution was, and for as nutty as Mao was, China saw nothing comparable to the compressed insanity of Stalin and Beria. More than that, there is no basis upon which to suggest that those billions willingly "cleaved" to the ideology. Christianity has been slaughtering the infidel for two millenia--Soviet communism lasted a scant three generations, late 1917 to 1991. Communism theoretically survives today in China, although i doubt that either Marx or Lenin would be willing to own it. As i have already pointed out, not even Mao's Cultural Revolution approaches the murderous enormities of the purges, the show trials, the deportations and the gulag--Stalin and Beria represent a singlar example of that madness. It is also worth pointing out that those who trot that horseshit out make no distinction between the deaths sustained by the Russians and the Chinese in the Second World War, and those which they intend to allege derive from rampant communist atheism.

"As I have already pointed out."

Believe it or not Setanta, some of us don't recognize you as the final word on all issues.

If you read all of my posts instead of looking for a sentence with which you might take umbrage, you would realize that I have expressed the opinion that irrespective of the ism, the number of so-called True Believers is consistently minor.

Critics of religion suggest that followers are fanatic True Believers. While I have clearly expressed disagreement with this contention (again Pooch read what you would nip), if there is an insistence upon generalization, then it should remain constant throughout our discussion.

Clearly, the billions of people who found themselves subject to communist rule did not joyously subscribe to the actions of Stalin or Mao. The point, of course, is that neither did the masses who have found themselves subject to religious rule.

0 Replies

There seems to be a disconnect in your thinking here Finn, that is frankly, un-Finn like. At Auschwitz, some of the condemned Jews actually assisted the Nazi's in hope of living just a little longer. The instinct for self-preservation is pretty damn strong in us humans. I suspect that more than a few Nazi's were Nazi's for the exact same reason. Guys like Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il etc. are not of the sort you want to cross. Crucify perhaps, but not cross. I think we'd all like to believe as individuals that we would never succumb to fear in such a situation but I for one am grateful that my medal has never been tested in such a way.

Do you contend that belief in a rewarding Afterlife wouldn't make it easier for a man to overcome his instinct for self preservation? I'm not talking black and white here. Isn't it reasonable (perhaps even undeniably so) to suggest that the stronger a man's belief that he's going to heaven, the easier it is on his psyche to cross the proverbial bridge?

In the case of the suicide bomber; you have an extreme example of a man overcoming his instinct for self preservation. Is it not, at least, a little easier to do so with a belief (with any amount of conviction) of a belief of the promised land especially if you believe your actions will help you gain admission?

(Sighting examples of non-theist suicide attacks does not answer or even apply to these questions. My point is a matter of likelihood, not possibility. Sighting examples of good deeds perpetrated by the faithful is equally irrelevant. I'm not bashing religion or the religious; I'm trying to illustrate a dangerous side-effect.)

Now, one could argue the suicide bomber is the most extreme example of sacrificing oneself to the cause of the collective. Now let's look at degrees. I would argue that simple murder of innocents on behalf of the collective is a lesser example of one sacrificing his own beliefs for the good of the collective. Not quite as tall of a hurdle as suicide bombing, but a hurdle for your average man just the same. Now, once again: Is it not, at least, a little easier to do so with a belief (with any amount of conviction) of a promised land especially if you believe your actions will help you gain admission?

Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.

A man can sacrifice himself by stepping in front of a bullet to save his friend. A pilot can run his aircraft into Pearl Harbor in hopes of saving his Country. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't find religion a necessary element to such behavior. It's a question of likelihood. Given a year to plan; to step in front of that bullet, or ram your plane into Pearl Harbor; would it not be at least a little easier to do so with a belief (with any amount of conviction) of a Promised Land? Now factor in a belief that such an action will increase the likelihood of your admittance to that Promised Land.

Doesn't the likelihood in each of the above scenarios increase with such beliefs? This is just one advantage religion has over any ism, when led by the charismatic fanatic.

God's will is far more compelling than the Furor's or Dear Leader's because He can make promises and threats the others cannot.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Clearly, the billions of people who found themselves subject to communist rule did not joyously subscribe to the actions of Stalin or Mao. The point, of course, is that neither did the masses who have found themselves subject to religious rule.

Ignoring all the snottiness which preceeded this--something it appears that you are unable to argue without puking up all over a thread--you are still wrong. The Franks who went on crusade were not subject to religious rule as the people of the Soviet empire were subject to Stalin's rule. They went on crusade because they were duped by religious doctrine. A handful of their leaders had venal agendae of self-agrandizement and self-enrichment, the rest of the fools who went to the various crusades participated because of principles which were central to their world view. You have completely failed to make a case that there ever were a class of people who were "subject to religious rule" who were lead astray against their collective will.

For two millenia, christianity has been a plague on humanity. From humble origins it rose within a few centuries to become the dominant religion of the dominant political organization of its day--the Roman Empire. The pre-christian empire had an official state religion, but adherence sat lightly on the shoulders of the people of the empire, who were free to follow any creed, as long as they had paid lip-service to the state religion. Christianity changed all of that. In the finest tradition of Abrahamic intolerance, both the Christians and the Muslims have tolerated no religious dissent. Not only were European christians not subject to religious rule, those who did rule them fought for centuries, and successfully, to prevent the ecclesiastic authorities from asserting any control over secular matters. The point is not about "isms," it's about the fanaticism which lies just beneath the surface of organized religions. Fascism and communism may come an go, but organized religion is here for the long haul, and in those versions of it which have come out of the middle east--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--the potential for diasterous consequences based upon unquestioning adherence to the dogmatic superstition is enormous.

You display a fine ignorance of history, and an eager willingness to make simplistic statements for the purpose of supporting your argument. You display no ability to substantiate the vague generalizations and oversimplifications which underlie your case.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
Everybody knows communists are just big huggable teddy bears.

Your attempt at sarcasm has all the flair and sting of a grammar school child's retort . . . the mass murders, show trials, mass deportations and the gulag did not exist before Stalin, and did not exist after Stalin. They were not axiomatically concommitant with a Leninist-Marxist state. Coming from a Jesus freak, that's a pretty snotty hypocricy you got goin' on there . . .

Who you callin a Jesus freak, dogface??

0 Replies

Finn wrote

Quote:

It is, I think, foolish, and dangerous to attempt to exempt individuals from accountability for their evil by focusing on a particular ism.

If you had your way and religion was wiped from the face of the earth, do you really believe that evil would be as well?

I will sum it up in a few words.
The evil men [regimes] do dies with [it/them]. While the evil of religion never does. For as long as religion exists with it's divisive beliefs and fanatical followers religion will continue to be th irritant that causes conflict between people and nations.

0 Replies

As far as the situation with Iran. The world is between a rock and a hard place. However one thing history teaches. Appeasement does not buy lasting peace. An example of that is the worlds or at least Europe's response to Germany in the late thirties.

0 Replies

Hamas Leader Mash'al: Islam Will Sit at the Throne of the World
***************************************************************

Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al at a Damascus Mosque: The Nation of Islam
Will Sit at the Throne of the World and the West Will Be Full of
Remorse - When It's Too Late

[ The following are excerpts from an address by Hamas leader Khaled
Mash'al at the Al-Murabit Mosque in Damascus. The address was
delivered following the Friday sermon at the mosque, and was aired on
Al-Jazeera TV on February 3, 2006. To view this clip, visit:
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1024 ]

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD108706 .

"We Say to This West... By Allah, You Will Be defeated"
Khaled Mash'al: "We apologize to our Prophet Muhammad, but we say to
him: Oh Prophet of Allah, do not be saddened, your nation will be
victorious.

"We say to this West, which does not act reasonably, and does not
learn its lessons: By Allah, you will be defeated. You will be
defeated in Palestine, and your defeat there has already begun. True,
it is Israel that is being defeated there, but when Israel is
defeated, its path is defeated, those who call to support it are
defeated, and the cowards who hide behind it and support it are
defeated. Israel will be defeated, and so will whoever supported or
supports it.

"America will be defeated in Iraq. Wherever the [Islamic] nation is
targeted, its enemies will be defeated, Allah willing. The nation of
Muhammad is gaining victory in Palestine. The nation of Muhammad is
gaining victory in Iraq, and it will be victorious in all Arab and
Muslim lands.

'Their multitudes will be defeated and turn their backs [and flee].'
These fools will be defeated, the wheel of time will turn, and times
of victory and glory will be upon our nation, and the West will be
full of remorse, when it is too late.

"They think that history has ended with them. They do not know that
the law of Allah cannot be changed or replaced. 'You shall not find a
substitute for the law of Allah. You shall not find any change to the
law of Allah.' Today, the Arab and Islamic nation is rising and
awakening, and it will reach its peak, Allah willing. It will be
victorious. It will link the present to the past. It will open up the
horizons of the future. It will regain the leadership of the world.
Allah willing, the day is not far off.

"Don't you see that every act of deceit they contrive is being turned
against them by Allah? Don't you see that they make every effort to
defeat us militarily, but fail to do so? Israel and the occupation
forces in Iraq are supplied with the entire Western military arsenal,
yet they fail and are defeated.

"Don't you see that they believe they are capable of using democracy
to deceive the people, but then democracy is turned against them?
Don't you see that they are spending their money in efforts to block
the way of Allah, to thwart Hamas, to defeat it, and to help those
whom they want, but that [this plot] is turned against them? They are
not acting reasonably.

"They do not understand the Arab or Muslim mentality, which rejects
the foreigner. Our Arab forefathers, before the advent of Islam,
rejected the aggressors and the foreigners.

[...]

"I bring good tidings to our beloved Prophet Muhammad: Allah's
promise and the Prophet's prophecy of our victory in Palestine over
the Jews and over the oppressive Zionists has begun to come true."

"I Say to Europe: Hurry Up and Apologize"

Mash'al: "I say to the [European countries]: Hurry up and apologize
to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it. This is
because our nation is progressing and is victorious. Do not leave a
black mark in the collective memory of the nation, because our nation
will not forgive you.

"Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is
not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead
the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you
no good. Our nation is moving forwards, and it is in your interest to
respect a victorious nation.

[...]

"Our nation will be victorious. When it reaches the leadership of the
world, and controls its own decisions, then it will prevent this
overt interference [in our affairs], and its pillaging of natural
resources, and will prevent these recurring offenses against our
land, against our nation, and against our holy places - then you will
regret it.

"Before Israel Dies, it Must Be Humiliated and Degraded"

Mash'al: "Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded.
Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and
degradation every day. America will be of no avail to them. Their
generals will be of no avail to them. The last of their generals has
been forgotten. Allah has made him disappear. He's over. Gone is that
Sharon behind whose back they would hide and find shelter, and with
whom they would feel relatively secure.

Today they have frail leaders, who don't even know where our Lord
placed them.

"Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make
them lose their brains.

"Their weapons will be of no avail to them. Their nuclear weapons
will be of no use to them. They thought that they had hegemony over
the region with their nuclear weapons, but suddenly Pakistan popped
up with Islamic nuclear weapons, and they are afraid of Iran and
several Arab countries have some chemical weapons.

"Israel has begun to sense that its superiority has come to an end.
Its army, which has superior conventional weapons - the air force,
the armored corps, and the missiles - there are no longer wars in
which these are used.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Hamas Leader Mash'al: Islam Will Sit at the Throne of the World

This is getting uglier by the day. The Charismatic Fanatics must be eliminated, soon, and their doctrine exposed as the pathway to annihilation. We tolerate this intolerance at our own peril. Leniency is laughed at and serves only to stoke the fire with hope. A two State solution looks more like a pipe dream every day. How long will it take before this particular fanatic crosses the line? Will the world unite in the face of this growing threat? It seems to me; only a massive unbending display of solidarity among the free people of the world stands a shot at cutting through the rhetoric. I wonder if it's already too late. It seems more and more that the fanatics truly seek a WW3 like battlefield, with no reasonable shot at winning. Removing leaders seems as effective as removing a glass of water from a swimming pool. I am at a loss to think of a cure whose side effects don't rival the disease in potential destruction. Neither quarantine nor surgical removal of cancerous tumors seems to be effective. What's next?

0 Replies

Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know